Re: Apache Exploit

From: Ben Laurie (benat_private)
Date: Fri Jun 21 2002 - 02:15:09 PDT

  • Next message: David Bernick: "Re: Apache Exploit"

    Stefan Esser wrote:
    > Hi,
    > 
    > i heard several people looking at the gobbles exploit and believing it
    > can only be fake:
    > 
    > here is my little explanation how bsd memcpy can be exploited:
    > 
    > first a snipset of the bsd memcpy code:
    > 
    > ...
    > 1:
    > 	addl	%ecx,%edi	/* copy backwards. */
    > 	addl	%ecx,%esi
    > 	std
    > [1]	andl	$3,%ecx		/* any fractional bytes? */
    > 	decl	%edi
    > 	decl	%esi
    > 	rep
    > 	movsb
    > [X]	movl	20(%esp),%ecx	/* copy remainder by words */
    > 	shrl	$2,%ecx
    > 	subl	$3,%esi
    > 	subl	$3,%edi
    > 	rep
    > 	movsl
    > ...
    > 
    > In Apache we trigger exactly this piece of code: bsd thinks the two
    > buffers are overlapping and so it wants to copy backward.
    > The problem is that you are able to overwrite the call to memcpy
    > including the supplied paramters (dst, src, length). With up to
    > 3 bytes ([1]) depending on alignment. if you align everything perfectly
    > you can set the 3 high bytes of length to zero and so change how many
    > dwords memcpy tries to copy in our case 0x000000?? 
    > This is only possible because the code reads the length param again from
    > stack [X]... This way you can easily survive the call and overwrite 
    > the saved instruction pointer before the memcpy call...
    
    I should just point out the slight error in this analysis - in fact, the 
    exploit only overwrites two bytes of the length (incidentally, the 
    length is also constrained to be its own stack offset, leaving no room 
    for manouver at all) - so the length is initially -146 (ffffff6e), and 
    after overwriting becomes 0000ff6e, copying just under 64k onto the 
    stack, which is plenty for a standard stack-based shellcode exploit.
    
    I've also checked, and FreeBSD is indeed vulnerable in the same way, but 
    the glibc implementation I have seen of memcpy is not, so if Linux is 
    vulnerable, its by another route. I haven't looked at Solaris.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Ben.
    
    -- 
    http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/
    
    "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
    doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 21 2002 - 16:15:09 PDT